United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 9, 11,
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Katheryn Papushak moves to remand this case back to state
court. Plaintiff argues that the Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction because her claims arise
under Ohio's workers' compensation
laws. Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.
(“Aramark”) opposes Plaintiff's motion to
following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff's motion to remand.
August 24, 2017, Plaintiff Papushak filed her complaint in
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff
Papushak sues her former employer, Defendant Aramark, for its
retaliation against her for having sought workers'
compensation benefits. Papushak says Aramark violates Ohio's
workers' compensation statute. Plaintiff's complaint
alleges Defendant discharged her “because Plaintiff
filed a claim and/or instituted, pursued or testified in a
proceeding under the workers' compensation
September 27, 2017, Defendant Aramark removed the case to
this Court by citing diversity jurisdiction. On October 2,
2017, Plaintiff moved to remand this case back to state
defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction.”
“[a] civil action in any State court arising under the
workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be
removed to any district court of the United
Harper v. AutoAlliance International Inc., a civil
action “arises under” a state's workmen's
compensation laws when either “(1) the workmen's
compensation law created the cause of action or (2) the
plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on
resolution of a substantial question of workmen's
argues that Ohio's workers' compensation laws did not
create a cause of action for wrongful discharge due to filing
or pursuing a workers' compensation claim. Defendant
also argues that Plaintiff's claim does not depend on or
require any interpretation of the Ohio workers'
Court disagrees with Defendant. Plaintiff's claim for
retaliatory discharge due to filing and/or pursuing a
workers' compensation claim arises under Ohio's
workers' compensation laws.
first Harper prong is satisfied. Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. § 4123.90, Ohio's workers'
compensation statute, created the cause of
action. Section 4123.90 specifically gives
claimants a right and remedy for retaliatory discharge for
filing or pursuing a workers' compensation
claim.The statute was also the first to
recognize Plaintiff's cause of action. Ohio enacted the
statute in 1986 before it recognized a general wrongful
discharge tort in 1990.
second Harper prong is also satisfied.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges she was discharged because
she pursued her rights under Ohio's workers'
compensation statute. As a result, the success of